All I can now recognize: there is really the existence (whatever if alayavinjana or other "object") accepted conventionally but only by worldly beings. They accept false seeming which is even not existed in their conventional, and they accept correct only for themselves. There is never the existence conventionally accepted by Madhyamikas (Centrists) and of course also ultimately.I mean at least during their debate, because of course not every Madhyamika is "beyond reference points" to realize non-clinging to "existence" directly. And Centrist do not make division between false and correct seeming as worldly beings. Maybe here the error lies: mixing what worldly beings accept with what Centrists accept?

Chandrakirti clearly refutes the existence of the alaya even conventionally in the avatara and it's bhasya.

That is indeed what some people think. Other people think Candrakirti's view is more nuanced than that. Candrakriti, in citing the Lanka in the Bhasya, clearly states that ālayavijñāna is a synonym for emptiness, thus laying the ground for ālayavijñāna to be accepted conventionally.

Thank you, that is very helpful, and I fully agree. The alaya or basis-of-all that is a mind that is different other than the six consciousnesses is precisely what is rejected by Chandrakirti in MA and MAB. Chandrakirti explains that the emptiness is the actual basis of all, so there is no need to posit this coarse concept of an all-ground mind that functions as a storehouse for the karmic seeds,either conventionally or ultimately

Namdrol wrote:Santideva is rejecting a truly established mind and the argument of reflexive cognition that cittamatrins introduce to defend it. That is the context of Santideva's argument, and that is all.

Quite agree. If there were self-cognition then the mind would be established truly, so the fact that is not is the adduced consequence of the correct point that there is no such thing as one mind which has itself as an object. Conventionally no such thing.

the example of a lamp illuminating itself and others in MMK is used to show that there is no ultimate production. As for this, there is production conventionally, but not ultimately, just as a lamp does not illuminate itself or others ultimately. Conventionally, it does illuminate other, but is not self-illuminating.

Namdrol wrote:So some would have it.

If you change your mind about debate, I am for you sir.

Namdrol wrote:I guess you are not understanding Gorampa's point [which is why I find this whole exercise to be one of utter futility

if you really found it futile you would give up. So obviously you do not. nor do I. Let's proceed.

Namdrol wrote: Gorampa is saying that conventional thing possess internal contradictions — this fact [that they possess internal contradictions] is what allows them to be refuted ultimately. He is not saying that these internal contradictions are what appear prior to analysis.

Though I fear to give you further feelings of futility and despair, I cannot agree with Gorampa. If you must think it is for sectarian reasons so be it. I think that whatever internal contradictions they appear to have are resolved at the conventional level. Contradictions may appear, but these contradictions only arise when you fail to be satisfied with valid appearances. Does a lamp dispel darkness? Yup. Does an orange seed give rise to an orange tree? Yup.
If you begin to analyze these conventions, they will become unstable, but if analyzed, as all the Madhayamaka masters advise, they appear and function in a thoroughly non-contradictory manner.

in the MMK Nagarjuna's investigation seeks out HOW the darkness is dispelled.... does it meet with the light? But how could it, where the lamp is there is no darkness! etc.
This contradiction arises as a result of the beginning of an ultimate search. Conventionally, we can say that the lamp dispels the darkness and there is a conventional reason for that. What about that reason, does it too have a reason? Yes. and so on until the answer is I don't know why that is, but we know that in fact it is.

Namdrol wrote:I am not saying that Gorampa is better than you, for on this score, indeed he is not.

you are no better than either of us low-down beings who cannot refrain from polemics. Declaim all you like but

"I guess you are not understanding Gorampa's point .....Gorampa is saying.... He is not saying .... Thus your statement ....So some would have it....
That is indeed what some people think..... Other people think Candrakirti's view is more nuanced than that....."

It is obvious to all except you that you are in fact debating, dancing on books, offering rejection and proof and the rest.

we shall agree to disagree. Oh wait.... what's this...? A reason to support your rejection of my stated view...? For some reason I thought you were beyond debate....

Namdrol wrote:There was a difference in opinion among different Madhyamaka scholars about how best to use reasoning to refute opponents and that is the extent of it. The whole controversy hinged solely on Bhavaviveka's criticism of Buddhapalita for not using a fully formed syllogism to refute self-production; with Candra coming to Buddhapalita's defense. End of story.

It's true, the difference between these approaches is razor thin. it was that way in India, and in Tibet. In the view of many Tibetan scholars, there is no difference in the view at all.
Both Indianscholars had many disciples (Bhavaviveka was apparently very famous indeed).
This is really what a school of thought is, isn't it? A bunch of people distinguished from another group by a distinction in thought?

I agree with you, it was much more pronounced and elaborated in Tibet after Sangphu, but to say that the Tibetans invented these classifications is, well, just not true.

Namdrol wrote:The development of a "Prasanga" school occured at Sangphu because Phyapa and his students were hostile to Candrakirti's texts when they were introduced by Batsap.

Formally, maybe.

Namdrol wrote:Thus, the division between Prasangika and Svatantrika is wholly a Tibetan invention.

Perhaps in terms of a formal self identifying school, ok. The division already existed, as you have effectively admitted above.

cloudburst wrote:You no longer wish to debate but for some reason you do while complaining about it.

I am not debating. I have no position to lose, or point to score.

You have to make a choice. Do you "find the whole exercise to be one of utter futility" and "no longer wish to participate in these kinds of discussions?" If so, I feel sorry for you, because you cannot seem to help yourself. If you are not actually debating and do not feel its so futile, perhaps having no position on whether it is futile, no point to score, then no need to keep saying all these wearying things. One gets the impression that you are so tired. Just debate away as you always have.

you represent many positions that all can see, for example it is clearly your position that it is better to rely on the Indian masters than get caught up in later Tibetan polemics. You seem to believe that we should learn Tibetan.You seem to defend the idea that things appear and function, though they are empty, etc etc etc etc

or did you mean "position" or position , perhaps? Maybe you mean position
like, in some kind of specialized sense? If so, please feel free just to say so.

Namdrol wrote: I am not discussing my own POV.

Whose POV are you discussing? It's not Gorampas.... It's not mine... It's not Chandrakirti's.....
Is it the POV of no POV, even though it evinces clear and consistent views? Are you claiming that it is not a POV but in fact "the truth?" I thought you might be, for a moment there.
Or are you not claiming anything in claiming that you are not discussing what you are discussing?

go ahead and just tell it like it is.

Namdrol wrote:I am attempting to encourage people to take a more constructive approach

It is clear that you are perhaps new at giving encouragement.

Namdrol wrote:Instead of saying, as I have many times in the past, "Tsongkhapa was wrong to say that we may leave off the second two alternatives of the four extremes because they are double negatives", it is better think long and hard why he might give such an opinion. Rather than immediately assume that Gorampa is wrong in asserting that Candrakiriti accepts things like svasamvedana conventionally, it is better to ask yourself why he might assert that. These great scholars almost always have very solid reasons for saying what they do about this and that thing, and the thing is, we have to really question ourselves if we think something they said is wrong. That is my point.

I must say, that is an excellent point and I accept it and applaud you and second it. I find one of the best ways to question this is to debate it, honestly.
Please you yourself consider how one might do as you recommend and still believe that mistakes are made by some scholars on some occasions. Especially when, as you say, they have polemical reasons for saying the things they do.

Buddha asserted the mind-only view on occasion and it was refuted by later scholars who understood that Buddha had a very solid reasons for asserting it. This does not mean that it was not incorrect, though very useful to many. Those who find Gorampa's view on the alaya useful will think I am completely wrong, and benefit from thinking so. Good for them.

cloudburst wrote:Chandrakirti explains that the emptiness is the actual basis of all, so there is no need to posit this coarse concept of an all-ground mind that functions as a storehouse for the karmic seeds,either conventionally or ultimately

How "the total freedom from all reference points" can be the basis for these reference points?

cloudburst wrote:Conventionally, we can say that the lamp dispels the darkness and there is a conventional reason for that.

Did you mean from the perspective of worldly beings or Centrists? How do you explain the acceptance of this dispelling as "really produced" by Centrist? How Centrists can point something what they directly realized as was not in the first place at all?

cloudburst wrote:In the view of many Tibetan scholars, there is no difference in the view at all.

How can you explain the endless locating "where exactly outer objects out there are" as soteriologically efficient? Can you locate for example "the center of the sky out there"? The infinitive conditions and causes of any "seems to be object" are like this sky impossible to locate. It will be waste of time. For me Tibetan scholars can be helpful as models to gauge and refine our personal insights only, but not necessary all of them are the soteriologically efficient guides for me.

Let's look for example something of Tsongkhapa what other decribe as "hornlike rabbit" or Dolpopa:
(The Center of the Sunlit Sky; page.571) "In general, the Karmapa (Mikyo Dorje) says,
any meditation or conduct based on the notion
of an isolated nature of phenomena that is not connected to anything that bears
this nature is not appropriate as either the foundation for the path to liberation
or the remedy for obscurations. For any meditation or conduct based on a nature
of phenomena that is unrelated to these phenomena cannot relinquish the two
obscurations of clinging to the reality of these very phenomena as the seeming
bearers of this nature. In terms of such a disconnected nature of phenomena, it
does not matter whether it is said to be a nonentity that is a nonimplicative negation
(as held by Tsongkhapa) or a permanent ultimate entity (as maintained by
Dölpopa and others). Both are equally soteriologically ineffective...

Namdrol wrote: Gorampa is saying that conventional thing possess internal contradictions — this fact [that they possess internal contradictions] is what allows them to be refuted ultimately. He is not saying that these internal contradictions are what appear prior to analysis.

Though I fear to give you further feelings of futility and despair, I cannot agree with Gorampa. If you must think it is for sectarian reasons so be it. I think that whatever internal contradictions they appear to have are resolved at the conventional level. Contradictions may appear, but these contradictions only arise when you fail to be satisfied with valid appearances.

You just agreed with Gorampa. Gorampa said contradictions exist within conventionalities which do not appear until analysis. All analysis appears at the conventional level. No one is disputing that; but all analysis has one aim, at least in Madhyamaka, to discern the real state of a given event or thing, such as a self-cognizing mind or a self-illuminating lamp, and so on.

Does a lamp dispel darkness? Yup. Does an orange seed give rise to an orange tree? Yup.
If you begin to analyze these conventions, they will become unstable, but if analyzed, as all the Madhayamaka masters advise, they appear and function in a thoroughly non-contradictory manner.

You just agreed with Gorampa.

in the MMK Nagarjuna's investigation seeks out HOW the darkness is dispelled.... does it meet with the light? But how could it, where the lamp is there is no darkness! etc.
This contradiction arises as a result of the beginning of an ultimate search. Conventionally, we can say that the lamp dispels the darkness and there is a conventional reason for that. What about that reason, does it too have a reason? Yes. and so on until the answer is I don't know why that is, but we know that in fact it is.

You just agred with Gorampa. This the sort of hastiness that has lead to centuries of Tibetan trench warfare.

Namdrol wrote:I am not saying that Gorampa is better than you, for on this score, indeed he is not.

you are no better than either of us low-down beings who cannot refrain from polemics. Declaim all you like but

I am trying to show you that such polemics carried out in the way we all have previously carried them out bring no one closer to any real understanding of anything, and in fact merely dig deeper sectarian trenches.

In this particular exchange, I am discussing what gorampa has to say, and because what Gorampa has to say is a little complicated about a very specific point, I was teasing out the threads so it would easier to understand.

As far as learning Tibetan goes, it is my observation that people get led very far afield because they become attached to certain English phrases which are not very precise renditions of Sanskrit and Tibetan terms, or in the case of Khenpo Karl, rather novel attempts at accuracy which have not gained wide currency. Thus, if they learn Tibetan, they will have more ability to check a given translation in order to better understand it.

I must say, that is an excellent point and I accept it and applaud you and second it. I find one of the best ways to question this is to debate it, honestly.

It might help you, then, to debate with someone who is more highly trained than myself, or the average run of the mill internet user. For example, let us say you defeat in debate someone who is inarticulate at expressing Tsongkhapa's view -- have you defeated Tsongkhapa's view? No.

I really hestitate to boldly state: "This scholar is wrong, this scholar is right". The reason I continually encourage people to go back to the basic Indian texts is that, quite frankly, Tibetan scholarship on these issues extremely complex.

Namdrol wrote:
You just agreed with Gorampa.
You just agreed with Gorampa.
You just agreed with Gorampa.

BAM!

look at me go! I would say we can both spit out a basic presentation of how madhyamaka works. Did Gorampa accept that the Alaya as a consciousness was non-existent like the hair on a bald man's head? If not we DO disagree there which as the original point.

Namdrol wrote:I am trying to show you that such polemics carried out in the way we all have previously carried them out bring no one closer to any real understanding of anything, and in fact merely dig deeper sectarian trenches.

Sorry, I genuinely do like your new semi-conciliatory side, but I enjoy disagreeing with Gormapa. I'm not saying his way of explaining things won't get you there, It's just that what I have read about it leads me to believe there are some aspects that are misleading. I do look forward to you writing something that harmonizes the views of all the schools, that would be a pleasure. Or even just a presentation of Gorampas views that clarify, that "Freedom From Extremes" thing is a travesty.

cloudburst wrote:
look at me go! I would say we can both spit out a basic presentation of how madhyamaka works. Did Gorampa accept that the Alaya as a consciousness was non-existent like the hair on a bald man's head? If not we DO disagree there which as the original point.

I think the question you are asking is "Does Gorampa accept that idea that Candrakirit thinks the ālaya as a consciousness is like the hair on a bald man's head."

As I stated before, I think that Gorampa thinks that Candrakirti's view on the conventional existence or non-existence of the ālayavijñāna is more nuanced and subtle then what some other scholars are willing to allow and that he disagrees with how some other scholars present Candrakirti's refutation of the ālayavijñāna, and so on, for reasons that are complex.

I have no idea whether Gorampa is correct or incorrect because Candrakirti is not around to be questioned. My suggestion is that one should examine the Bhasya and Jayānanda's commentary.

Namdrol wrote:
It might help you, then, to debate with someone who is more highly trained than myself, or the average run of the mill internet user. For example, let us say you defeat in debate someone who is inarticulate at expressing Tsongkhapa's view -- have you defeated Tsongkhapa's view? No.

good point. But you and a few others here are the best ones I can find. Also, you debate substantively, whereas trained debaters I have had the opportunity to speak with are tricky and rely to much on the letter at the expense of the meaning. It's like lawyer tricks.

Namdrol wrote:I really hestitate to boldly state: "This scholar is wrong, this scholar is right". The reason I continually encourage people to go back to the basic Indian texts is that, quite frankly, Tibetan scholarship on these issues extremely complex.

Many of us would LOVE to go back to the Indian texts, but let's be honest, the translations a abominable. I just can't read another introduction about how Wittgenstein presented the middle way in Philosophical investigations. Ugh.
Also, many of them are presented through a strong filter of a particular school, so even in reading them, you cannot really uncover the original. It hink it is criminal that there is not a translation of prasannapada, avatarabhaysa, chandras commentary to the 400, the Buddhapalita etc. I feel that these really do clarify many of the points and would serve many well. Instead we have 600 books on what the third Karmapa and the Ninth Karmapa said, and to my way of thinking almost all the Gelugpa based works by western scholars are not worth the paper they're printed on. They are a self indulgent quagmire. Excepting the LamrimChenmo series, which is clear and quite good. Oh and Dose of Emptiness. Also not too bad.

Generally most will never learn Tibetan, there are few opportunities to do so if you have a job or a family and no Tibetans live around you. It's up to our western translators now.
Meanwhile, I firmly believe we can achieve the goal by relying on our particular schools. I have great confidence in the views of Je Tsongkhapa, but I also believe that if you follow the path laid out by a Nyingma lama, you have a path to full enlightenment there. Obviously same for Kagyu and Sakya. That's really the point, isn't it? All this "scholarship" for me is just a means of clarifying the views presented by one's lama. The rest is froth.

I agree the Tibetan stuff gets bananas, esp when you get into the maitreya texts and how the schools differ. I don't even bother with most of it. But I prefer reading Dilgo Kyentse to watching mad men, so what are you going to do?
thanks.

cloudburst wrote:Chandrakirti explains that the emptiness is the actual basis of all, so there is no need to posit this coarse concept of an all-ground mind that functions as a storehouse for the karmic seeds,either conventionally or ultimately

How "the total freedom from all reference points" can be the basis for these reference points?

Karl is weak on clarifying how these reference points refer to the ultimate, although he is forced to admit it in certain sections. Conventionally there are of course reference points. and that is how. Conventionally. By convention.

Mariusz wrote:

cloudburst wrote:Conventionally, we can say that the lamp dispels the darkness and there is a conventional reason for that.

Did you mean from the perspective of worldly beings or Centrists? How do you explain the acceptance of this dispelling as "really produced" by Centrist? How Centrists can point something what they directly realized as was not in the first place at all?

Sorry, I can't really understand what you are trying to say.

Mariusz wrote:

cloudburst wrote:In the view of many Tibetan scholars, there is no difference in the view at all.

How can you explain the endless locating "where exactly outer objects out there are" as soteriologically efficient? Can you locate for example "the center of the sky out there"? The infinitive conditions and causes of any "seems to be object" are like this sky impossible to locate. It will be waste of time. For me Tibetan scholars can be helpful as models to gauge and refine our personal insights only, but not necessary all of them are the soteriologically efficient guides for me.

it is liberating because we find that the objects of our delusions do not exist at all. You cannot locate the center of the sky, and this is the point. One also cannot find the objects of one's delusions.

Mariusz wrote:Let's look for example something of Tsongkhapa what other decribe as "hornlike rabbit" or Dolpopa:
(The Center of the Sunlit Sky; page.571) "In general, the Karmapa (Mikyo Dorje) says,
any meditation or conduct based on the notion
of an isolated nature of phenomena that is not connected to anything that bears
this nature is not appropriate as either the foundation for the path to liberation
or the remedy for obscurations. For any meditation or conduct based on a nature
of phenomena that is unrelated to these phenomena cannot relinquish the two
obscurations of clinging to the reality of these very phenomena as the seeming
bearers of this nature. In terms of such a disconnected nature of phenomena, it
does not matter whether it is said to be a nonentity that is a nonimplicative negation
(as held by Tsongkhapa) or a permanent ultimate entity (as maintained by
Dölpopa and others). Both are equally soteriologically ineffective...

KMD grossly misunderstood what Je Tsongkhapa was saying and as a result he and Karl have wasted a tremendous amount of time penning pointless refutations...HEY I'm starting to sound like Namdrol!

Center of the Sunlit sky is perhaps good for the students of Ponlop Rinpoche, I can't say, but it is not an impressive text, to be honest.
Thanks.

A) trying to determine what the karmapa said about what gorampa said about what chandra said about what nagarjuna said about reflexive cognition? (is that the philosophical equivalent of the children's game "telephone"?)

or

B) inspecting your own consciousness to see what reflexive cognition could possibly be or if it can be actually experienced, and in what way?

Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.

"I must finally conclude that this proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind."
- Descartes, 2nd Meditation 25

Mariusz wrote: that the lamp dispels the darkness and there is a conventional reason for that.
Did you mean from the perspective of worldly beings or Centrists? How do you explain the acceptance of this dispelling as "really produced" by Centrist? How Centrists can point something what they directly realized as was not in the first place at all?

cloudburst wrote:Sorry, I can't really understand what you are trying to say.

Excuse me. I agree with you if "Conventionally, we (worldly beings) can say it..." but not if "Conventionally, we (Centrists) can say it..."

If Centrists use the perspective "what worldly beings accept" in the dabate for the help of those worldly beings, it will be only like "skilled physicians using the medicine" and it proofs they are "skilled" only, not they are "sick".

A) trying to determine what the karmapa said about what gorampa said about what chandra said about what nagarjuna said about reflexive cognition? (is that the philosophical equivalent of the children's game "telephone"?)

or

B) inspecting your own consciousness to see what reflexive cognition could possibly be or if it can be actually experienced, and in what way?

I always quoted subject-side perspective should be cultivated, not object-side perspective. For those using object-side perspective "the debate" is never ending story....

cloudburst wrote:
it is liberating because we find that the objects of our delusions do not exist at all. You cannot locate the center of the sky, and this is the point. One also cannot find the objects of one's delusions.

This is the point which was quoted already by me here in the forum:

Mariusz wrote:Here I have an answer for all of you based on my previous posts in Dharmawheel:

"Nagarjuna and Candrakirti demonstraded so extensilvly is precisely that nothing makes sense when it is analyzed". And it is should be realized until not reference points at all, the total freedom from all the seeming where all divisions started, whatever conventional or ultimate. In contrast, if you want locate the "perceived object" precisely (e.g. a table) even conventionally, it is impossible for you sentient being, because infinite causes/conditions since beginigless time. What is called a sentient being is nothing but the very mistakenness that makes up such a distinctions. Nothing functions, nothing makes sense for you sentient being. But you can try endlessly. If you find anything here, congratulations, but unfortunately it will be just one more reference point which harms your realization. Any meditation based on it will be waste indeed because not soteriologically efficient. Nagarjuna wrote:"For those for whom emptiness is not possible, nothing is possible".

In other words if you looking for "the objects of one's delusions" you will be never "self-liberated" and it was quoted here:

Mariusz wrote:If the "seeming" is not the "self-liberated" there is not unblurred unimpaired vision=freedom from all reference points=the perfect nirvāṇa by nature

The Karmapa quote for it:

(The Feast; p.321) The notion of “inherent arising” refers to an arising
of the very characteristics of phenomena themselves, an arising that exists
independent of the conceptual mind. There is no such arising in either of
the truths.

2.2.2.1.1.6.2.3.1.1.1.2.1.2.2.2.2.2. We do not contradict
scripture

Therefore the Teacher said that all phenomena
Are primordially peace, free of arising,
And perfect nirvāṇa by nature.
Therefore never is there any arising. (6.112)
In other words, defining inherent existence is the problem itself.

What was not in the first place means primordial. In buddhahood there is no need to catch anything (e.g. wisdom) because everything already the "self-liberated", perfect and beyond the seeming (obscurations to liberation and to omniscience)